[melanie]

3. The practice: Don’t believe this—look and see it for yourself!

Exactly as this cannot be Taught .... thanks not2too.

mel.

[not2too]

Originally Posted by melanie

Exactly as this cannot be Taught .... thanks not2too.

mel.

One must put aside the “facts” and “events” that are the objects of rational and logical teaching and thought, and allow the ego to dissolve into the wordless silence of "no-knowledge".

To a hard nosed ToeQuester, this may sound like muddled nonsense. But to dismiss it as such is to betray the uninitiated view that cannot distinguish between “having no knowledge” and having “no-knowledge.” The former is simply a state of ignorance, the latter is to be enlightened.

not2too

[dipayankar]

Matter is present in both animate and inanimate objects. Inanimate object do not possess any consciousness and even in animate objects, not many species possess consciousness, but matter is present everywhere.

Originally Posted by melanie

There is no difference between Consciousness and the way IT appears as matter. All there is, is Consciousness.

'Objective appearances' are also available in dreams where it is perhaps easier to see that solidity and fluidity manifest in and out of consciousness only.

BTW religion is just another word for science, it's all pure conceptual and meaningless, except as conceived.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

Matter is present in both animate and inanimate objects. Inanimate object do not possess any consciousness and even in animate objects, not many species possess consciousness, but matter is present everywhere.

Cannot metal become fatigued Dip?We can,so whats the REAL difference?



regards michael,

[melanie]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

Matter is present in both animate and inanimate objects. Inanimate object do not possess any consciousness and even in animate objects, not many species possess consciousness, but matter is present everywhere.

The self appears as both the animate and inanimate world.

Though appearing as the animate and inanimate world
the self remains ever one, there is no division.

Conscious awareness is both subtle and gross
the sentient being finds division where there is none.

The mind is the ripple in the perfect stillness.
The ephemeral elements that form all things manifest in different ways, some appear soft, others hard,
but are qualities of the one existence [universal mind]

The animating energy [life] expresses via this mind body organism.



The brain, thoughts, and all that is perceived or conceived, are objects appearing in Awareness. This Awareness cannot be objectified.
It is 'upstream' of all appearances and just like invisible sight is indirectly proven in and by all things seen.
Awareness is indirectly proven by all that appears in it.
Direct proof requires duality in which 'this' leads to 'that' but Awareness or Beingness is its own proof.


mel.

[not2too]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

Matter is present in both animate and inanimate objects. Inanimate object do not possess any consciousness and even in animate objects, not many species possess consciousness, but matter is present everywhere.

Check out...THE NATURE OF THINGS: The Secret Life Of Inanimate Objects, by Lyall Watson...
http://www.amazon.com/Nature-Things-.../dp/089281408X
...for an eye-opening thrill ride through the secret world of "inanimate" objects. I thought everything was made of energy anyhow, not matter.
No matter...

Best,
not2too

[melanie]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

Matter is present in both animate and inanimate objects. Inanimate object do not possess any consciousness and even in animate objects, not many species possess consciousness, but matter is present everywhere.

[dipayankar]

Actually metal fatigue is a misnomer as the mocules start to come apart. In animate objects the fatigue is generally referred to as a mental fatigue which does not have any molecular degenaration..

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick

Cannot metal become fatigued Dip?We can,so whats the REAL difference?



regards michael,

[not2too]

Earlier in this thread I mentioned three areas of inquiry that I wanted to pursue as part of my own ToeQuest. I provided a link to an introduction to one of them, Quantum Tantra, which its "discoverer" physicist Nick Herbert, has proclaimed "a new kind of physics". This seems to be an appropriate time in the unfolding of the thread to re-introduce Nick Herbert's work. I have included an excerpt from his article, An Introduction To Quantum Tantra", below. The entire article may be found at…
http://southerncrossreview.org/16/herbert.essay.htm
…and an additional treatment of the subject matter may be found at one of his websites…
http://quantumtantra.com/
…as well as elsewhere on the net.

"…Many primitive peoples organized their lives around a doctrine we call "animism", the belief that every object possesses sentient "insides" like our own. The quantum consciousness assumption, which amounts to a kind of "quantum animism" likewise asserts that consciousness is an integral part of the physical world, not an emergent property of special biological or computational systems. Since everything in the world is on some level a quantum system, this assumption requires that everything be conscious on that level. If the world is truly quantum animated, then there is an immense amount of invisible inner experience going on all around us that is presently inaccessible to humans, because our own inner lives are imprisoned inside a small quantum system, isolated deep in the meat of an animal brain. We may not need to travel into outer space to inhabit entirely new worlds. New experiential worlds of inconceivable richness and variety may already be present "at our fingertips"--worlds made up of strangely intelligent minds that silently surround and interpenetrate our own modes of awareness.

Half-baked attempts to explain consciousness, such as mind-as-software or mind-as-emergent-property do not take themselves seriously enough to confront the experimental facts, our most intimate data base, namely how mind itself feels from the inside. On the other hand, the most suggestive evidence for a quantum model of mind is that the Heisenberg picture of how quantum events actually happen in the world is extremely congruent with our own internal experience of what it's like to be a sentient being. Looking inside, I do not feel like "software" whatever that might mean, but indeed like a shimmering (wavelike?) center of ambiguous potentia (possibilities?) around which more solid perceptions and ideas are continually congealing (quantum jumps?). This rough match of internal feeling with external description could be utterly deceptive but it at least shows that the quantum model of mind can successfully confront the introspective evidence in a way that no other mind models even attempt…


…This quantum model of mind offers a new perspective on conscious experience which could lead to a new "quantum psychology" linking our internal experiences in a testable way to the objective external behavior of certain (so far unidentified) brain-resident quantum systems. The problems of human perception, emotion and personality as well as the mysterious extra-physical origin of quantum jumps may well yield to a disciplined marriage of keen introspection and quantum biology. Moving beyond quantum psychology, the realization that behind every visible quantum process lies an invisible psychic extension will result in a new kind of physics--I call it "quantum tantra"-- in which human awareness becomes an essential component of every experiment.

"If questions of a different kind can be asked, then nature will respond in a new language."--Beverly Rubik, biophysicist

At the heart of quantum tantra will be a new kind of measurement that I call "rapprochement" to distinguish it from the act of measurement in conventional physics. While an ordinary measurement informs us about a thing's outsides, rapprochement connects the observer to an object's heretofore hidden insides, allowing him or her to directly experience the inner lives of quantum systems.

As conventional measurement cannot penetrate to the inside of an object to examine its quantum potentia because every conventional measurement, no matter how delicate, inevitably triggers a quantum jump that erases all potentia save one. This new kind of measurement--rapprochement--on the other hand, connects the mind of the observer directly to the object's potentia without the intervention of a quantum jump. The full content of the object's inner life is adjoined to the inner life of the observer and their intermingled potentias mutually enrich each other, without memorializing or prejudicing one potentia over another…"

Further…
not2too

[dipayankar]

Do we need to really look into consciousness?? It is metaphysics and ToE is physics thus these twains need to be kept seperate..

Originally Posted by not2too

Earlier in this thread I mentioned three areas of inquiry that I wanted to pursue as part of my own ToeQuest. I provided a link to an introduction to one of them, Quantum Tantra, which its "discoverer" physicist Nick Herbert, has proclaimed "a new kind of physics". This seems to be an appropriate time in the unfolding of the thread to re-introduce Nick Herbert's work. I have included an excerpt from his article, An Introduction To Quantum Tantra", below. The entire article may be found at…
http://southerncrossreview.org/16/herbert.essay.htm
…and an additional treatment of the subject matter may be found at one of his websites…
http://quantumtantra.com/
…as well as elsewhere on the net.

"…Many primitive peoples organized their lives around a doctrine we call "animism", the belief that every object possesses sentient "insides" like our own. The quantum consciousness assumption, which amounts to a kind of "quantum animism" likewise asserts that consciousness is an integral part of the physical world, not an emergent property of special biological or computational systems. Since everything in the world is on some level a quantum system, this assumption requires that everything be conscious on that level. If the world is truly quantum animated, then there is an immense amount of invisible inner experience going on all around us that is presently inaccessible to humans, because our own inner lives are imprisoned inside a small quantum system, isolated deep in the meat of an animal brain. We may not need to travel into outer space to inhabit entirely new worlds. New experiential worlds of inconceivable richness and variety may already be present "at our fingertips"--worlds made up of strangely intelligent minds that silently surround and interpenetrate our own modes of awareness.

Half-baked attempts to explain consciousness, such as mind-as-software or mind-as-emergent-property do not take themselves seriously enough to confront the experimental facts, our most intimate data base, namely how mind itself feels from the inside. On the other hand, the most suggestive evidence for a quantum model of mind is that the Heisenberg picture of how quantum events actually happen in the world is extremely congruent with our own internal experience of what it's like to be a sentient being. Looking inside, I do not feel like "software" whatever that might mean, but indeed like a shimmering (wavelike?) center of ambiguous potentia (possibilities?) around which more solid perceptions and ideas are continually congealing (quantum jumps?). This rough match of internal feeling with external description could be utterly deceptive but it at least shows that the quantum model of mind can successfully confront the introspective evidence in a way that no other mind models even attempt…


…This quantum model of mind offers a new perspective on conscious experience which could lead to a new "quantum psychology" linking our internal experiences in a testable way to the objective external behavior of certain (so far unidentified) brain-resident quantum systems. The problems of human perception, emotion and personality as well as the mysterious extra-physical origin of quantum jumps may well yield to a disciplined marriage of keen introspection and quantum biology. Moving beyond quantum psychology, the realization that behind every visible quantum process lies an invisible psychic extension will result in a new kind of physics--I call it "quantum tantra"-- in which human awareness becomes an essential component of every experiment.

"If questions of a different kind can be asked, then nature will respond in a new language."--Beverly Rubik, biophysicist

At the heart of quantum tantra will be a new kind of measurement that I call "rapprochement" to distinguish it from the act of measurement in conventional physics. While an ordinary measurement informs us about a thing's outsides, rapprochement connects the observer to an object's heretofore hidden insides, allowing him or her to directly experience the inner lives of quantum systems.

As conventional measurement cannot penetrate to the inside of an object to examine its quantum potentia because every conventional measurement, no matter how delicate, inevitably triggers a quantum jump that erases all potentia save one. This new kind of measurement--rapprochement--on the other hand, connects the mind of the observer directly to the object's potentia without the intervention of a quantum jump. The full content of the object's inner life is adjoined to the inner life of the observer and their intermingled potentias mutually enrich each other, without memorializing or prejudicing one potentia over another…"

Further…
not2too